Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't know how you can say, especially, the point in bold when it's been stated a million times that women in the rice fields of China have always worn them. I'd have to drag up lots of past conversations on this subject and I sure don't have the time for it.


I can agree with you here.


I'm not sure I agree with you here, because the origins did start with the men, as you stated - "men girded their loins." So, in that respect, I think in ancient antiquity, it already started to be a man's garment which developed into, as you say, recently universal.

Now, I will have to drag Pel's post to me, because it is probably just as simple as he states.



Probably just that simple. Thanks, Pel!

Most observers of history seem to associate the development of the "bifurcated garment" (pants) as being a response to the needs of men riding horseback in colder climes. I personally don't know of any conclusive evidence for this, it just seems to be true because these are the people that brought this particular fashion into the Mediterranean world.

We have relatively little information about the "Northern Barbarians" compared to the relatively rich histories we have of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian cultures. In the warmer Mediterranean region, men wore skirts while riding horseback - see any illustration of Roman, Greek, Egyptian and etc. cavalry uniforms. When the Romans moved north through Gaul (France) and crossed the Rhine into northern Germany, they began to wear "leggings" for warmth

In the North, men wore "pants" because they rode horses. The "cultured" and educated men (the druids, for example) wore robes and skirt-liked tunics as they dwelt in the cities and spent little time on horseback. Notice too, the clerics, missionaries and monks of the Dark Ages all wore skirts - a practice that has been carried into the modern age by Roman Catholic and other clerics. These were considered "educated" and "cultured" men and they tended to shun the rough customs and apparel of the warriors, farmers and merchant travelers.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Most observers of history seem to associate the development of the "bifurcated garment" (pants) as being a response to the needs of men riding horseback in colder climes. I personally don't know of any conclusive evidence for this, it just seems to be true because these are the people that brought this particular fashion into the Mediterranean world.

We have relatively little information about the "Northern Barbarians" compared to the relatively rich histories we have of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian cultures. In the warmer Mediterranean region, men wore skirts while riding horseback - see any illustration of Roman, Greek, Egyptian and etc. cavalry uniforms. When the Romans moved north through Gaul (France) and crossed the Rhine into northern Germany, they began to wear "leggings" for warmth

In the North, men wore "pants" because they rode horses. The "cultured" and educated men (the druids, for example) wore robes and skirt-liked tunics as they dwelt in the cities and spent little time on horseback. Notice too, the clerics, missionaries and monks of the Dark Ages all wore skirts - a practice that has been carried into the modern age by Roman Catholic and other clerics. These were considered "educated" and "cultured" men and they tended to shun the rough customs and apparel of the warriors, farmers and merchant travelers.

Which helps to prove to me that the scripture doesn't have a thing to do with wearing pants. Both men and women wore pants at some point in history and both men and women wore skirts at some point in history.

Women should look like women and men should look like men - and if a woman is trying to look like a man or a man is trying to look like a woman, then God doesn't like it.

Seems like a simple thing to me.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Most observers of history seem to associate the development of the "bifurcated garment" (pants) as being a response to the needs of men riding horseback in colder climes. I personally don't know of any conclusive evidence for this, it just seems to be true because these are the people that brought this particular fashion into the Mediterranean world.

As Prax posted, it seems to have begun with the "girding up of the loins" to free themselves for work, war, etc. Charlemagne in the 9th century wore a shorter pant. The ancient Persians, Chinese and Mongol's fought wars in the capri style.

Your paragraph above, Prax's comment and a portion of an earlier post from you round out my view. You had posted about the women in fields wearing the "Fu" which is a sort of capri pant and it means "work".

I still maintain that in ancient antiquity, the trouser type garment began with the man even though women began wearing them for the functionality in work. That is why, IMO, the garment has become to be universally known and identified, today, as man's apparel.

And just to be clear, it doesn't mean that women cannot and should not wear them. That has never been my point at all. I was simply wondering how we came to wear robes together and how, today, pants are depicted when having to make a differentiation between the sexes, on say, a restroom sign or stick figures. LOL!

We have women in our church who do wear pants and that doesn't bother anyone. There are some of us that have never cared for pants and don't want to wear them today. If I had to wear a pair of pants, I would never wear a pair that was loose in the leg. I hate them like that, I want them tight. So, that throws modesty out the window on that issue for me. LOL!

Thanks for taking the time. I really enjoyed reading your posts, Pel!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

As Prax posted, it seems to have begun with the "girding up of the loins" to free themselves for work, war, etc. Charlemagne in the 9th century wore a shorter pant. The ancient Persians, Chinese and Mongol's fought wars in the capri style.

Your paragraph above, Prax's comment and a portion of an earlier post from you round out my view. You had posted about the women in fields wearing the "Fu" which is a sort of capri pant and it means "work".

I still maintain that in ancient antiquity, the trouser type garment began with the man even though women began wearing them for the functionality in work. That is why, IMO, the garment has become to be universally known and identified, today, as man's apparel.

And just to be clear, it doesn't mean that women cannot and should not wear them. That has never been my point at all. I was simply wondering how we came to wear robes together and how, today, pants are depicted when having to make a differentiation between the sexes, on say, a restroom sign or stick figures. LOL!

We have women in our church who do wear pants and that doesn't bother anyone. There are some of us that have never cared for pants and don't want to wear them today. If I had to wear a pair of pants, I would never wear a pair that was loose in the leg. I hate them like that, I want them tight. So, that throws modesty out the window on that issue for me. LOL!

Thanks for taking the time. I really enjoyed reading your posts, Pel!

I would say it's no longer universally known as men's garments with the exception of rural backwards people where men treat women like servants more than wives.

I would though argue dresses are universally associated with women. Women are still depicted as the "weaker" sex..they are to have children and only get jobs where the work with children or the home. It's mostly western culture that has said women can achieve higher status and better standards.

Men needed pants to fight wars and right horses, to work hard without worrying about getting their skirt caught in a machine. Eventually it became less practical and more fashion/custom. Men don't need a suit to go to work but in some areas it has become custom.

Well now that women have entered the same work areas they also dress "suited". It can be a smart skirt ensamble or it can be a pant suit

BTW the kilt was the Scottish version of pants just as the Roman's short skirts were too.They wore they because they could move more freely in while women still wore longer and more restricting dresses

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I would say it's no longer universally known as men's garments with the exception of rural backwards people where men treat women like servants more than wives.

Okay. LOL! I don't agree, of course.

I would though argue dresses are universally associated with women. Women are still depicted as the "weaker" sex..they are to have children and only get jobs where the work with children or the home. It's mostly western culture that has said women can achieve higher status and better standards.

Yes, dresses are universally associated with women, that is why the pants are universally associated with men. See how that works? LOL!

Men needed pants to fight wars and right horses, to work hard without worrying about getting their skirt caught in a machine. Eventually it became less practical and more fashion/custom. Men don't need a suit to go to work but in some areas it has become custom.

Well now that women have entered the same work areas they also dress "suited". It can be a smart skirt ensamble or it can be a pant suit

Of course, I think we already said all of this.

BTW the kilt was the Scottish version of pants just as the Roman's short skirts were too.They wore they because they could move more freely in while women still wore longer and more restricting dresses

True, but the men also utilized the "trews", which were a form of trouser. The were trimmed on the inside to protect the legs when horseback riding. They wore them with the kilt.